Yes ! I agree with u totally BranShea. English was very easy to learn as second language. But my point is that, parents should also emphazie to their children the importance of knowing how to converse fluently in their first Language as it provides them with an identity.

Agree, converse, write, spelling and grammar. All very good to have it well settled before learning a foreign language. But this complaint about bad homeland language- teaching seems to be general. Here usuallly children start at 8 or 9 with a second language. By then the native tongue should be well understood. Alas it rarely is.

In my opinion, language is a tool which carries forward the cultural values across generations. If Language is given less importance, ultimately the cultural values diminish over time.

I basically hail from South India, and my mother tongue is Tamil. I went abroad to pursue my university education. It was sad to note that many friends of mine who where originally speakers of Tamil, couldn't converse well in Tamil just because their parents insisted from the early age to use English at all levels(even at home). Also they patronized the West more, by means of watching American Sitcoms, shows, movies etc. I could see them losing their cultural identity over time.

On the "Hathaway" side of the family, I am a 12th generation American -- eligible for membership in the Mayflower Society -- fortunately, I'm not much of a joiner.

On the "Vaughn" side of the family, I am only a 3rd generation American. "Vaughn" came from my paternal grandmother's maiden name, which was Von Gruenigen, sometimes spelled in the US without the space. Her father was from Bern, Switzerland. Her mother was from Hamburg, Germany. Both German and English were spoken in the home. Because my mother died when I was quite young, I grew up in my grand mother's home. While I learned enough German from her that I can read it somewhat, I didn't learn to converse in the language. I wish that I had. My father didn't either.

I think it is a mistake for an immigrant family to abandon their native language completely upon moving to a country where another language is predominant. While it is certainly important to learn the language of their new country, the maintenance of the native language aids the preservation of a family's culture.

I have attempted with varying degrees of success to inculcate in my children an appreciation for where we came from. The Hathaway name can be traced to the Doomsday Book in England. My wife's maiden name can be traced to the potato famine immigrations to America. My paternal grandmother's mother was an indentured servant when she came to America (She was only five; but her entire family was indentured. Her parents did not survive the journey and so she and her surviving sister were farmed out to two different sponsoring families. My great-grandmother's "sponsor" adopted her. Her sister's "sponsor" did not.) I inherited my grandmother's cook book. It has a number of recipes in it that can be traced to the Hebrock family from Hamburg from more than 150 years ago. I have my grandmother's German catechism and hymnal from the 1890s. Therefore, some of our cultural heritage has been preserved. BTW, I don't trumpet the roots of the Von Gruenigens very much. They were closely related to Fredrich Willhelm at whose feet many lay the blame for World War I.)

In that post five boxes up I should have said "lingua franca" in stead of "global language". I agree with you that it is very important to keep native languages alive. If only for the richness and fun of it. But English definitely was the easiest language to learn as a second language. (don't know how it is for Tamil speaking people)

Isn't it ironic that you had to use a French -- or is it Latin? -- term to describe what English has become? But, IMO, it was an excellent comment or observation because it reminds us that the "global language" does not necessarily remain such forever.

In the occident, Greek was the "lingua franca" during the time of the Roman Empire, followed by Latin, then French. Now, it is English. If the world-wide economic crisis instigates the rise of a new predominant world-leader, how long will English remain such? Should we be studying Chinese?

IMO, BTW, the change from Latin to French in the occident indicated a lessening of the influence of the church on the world and the rise of the state. French became the language of the courts and of diplomacy and thus became the "global language" of its day. The British Empire, World War I and World War II brought about the predominance of English.

I think bi-( let alone multi-) lingualism enriches Canada rather than ripping it. After all the English were just one of the immigrant groups, and not the first either. ( In my part of Canada there are more native speakers of Mandarin and Punjabi than of French but English is going strong. )

Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.